You don’t do either to get information out of him. The purpose of either the criminal system or the military tribunal is to convict and sentence him. Interrogating him is a whole other thing, and will happen however he’s tried.
Well, do you think there aren’t many people on the right (or even in the center) who would prefer to have the people you listed above sent thru the military tribunal system? But we don’t have that option, so it’s a moot point. And none of those guys is intent on blowing up airliners and killing hundred of random, innocent people.
Look. The question at hand here is whether or not we can reasonably disagree on which is the better way to treat this guy. Even if there are some who would like to see him tortured, that does not negate the argument that some have made about treating him as an enemy combatant and put thru a military tribunal instead of the criminal justice system.
And, just for the record, I’m on the side of putting him thru the criminal justice system. I do realize that many on the right are trying to politicize this and score points against Obama. However, there is a legitimate argument to be made that he belongs in the custody of the military.
Reid wasn’t indicted until 2002. Were the military tribunals operational by then?
Anyway, there’s a big problem I have with all of this: what is the potential benefit of trying Mutallab in a military court as opposed to a civilian criminal court?
How many Miltary Tribunals related to 9/11 and later terrorism have been held and what were the outcomes percentage-wise for convictions?
The point is not there are tribunals now. It is that the civilian system worked. He will be in jail for a very long time. What is wrong with that?
Agree that this is rather simplistic, but it does have an underlying truth. It’s not so much that “pubbies are the suxor”, however it does highlight a problem with US politics. That is, politics has descended to the level of sports franchises.
Politics is essentially a sports culture now. It does not matter what your team does, or how they perform, or if they play fairly. It’s all about cheering for your team, no matter what. If you are a loyal fan of your team, you cheer for your team. Period. The other team always sucks. Period. The other team is bad, bad, bad. Always. Policies and logical thinking do not enter into US politics for the majority of the public. It’s about the Red Team vs. the Blue Team.
The question in this post is simply another example of cheering against the Blue Team. It really matters not one jot what the Blue Team is doing. If you are a fan of the Red Team, you MUST disparage EVERYTHING that the Blue Team does. The Blue Team is ALWAYS, ALWAYS wrong.
But it’s not a moot point. There needs to be some demonstration that the civilian system is inadequate to the job before I can reasonably be asked to be upset about him not going through the military system. Otherwise, I have to assume that the complaint isn’t really rooted in the ability of the civilian system but in something else. And the primary difference (in most people’s eyes) between someone going to a New York federal prison and them going to Gitmo is how they’re treated while interrogated. So references to waterboarding and whatever else are entirely relevant.
Whether they’re intent on blowing up airplanes is immaterial. There’s plenty of “civilian” criminals every bit as sadistic and evil as suicide bombing terrorists. People every bit, if not considerably more so, as organized, funded, trained and equipped with deadly weaponry as al’Qaeda cells in Yemen. They just don’t have their goals met by blowing up airplanes.
No system is perfect for “the job”. The question isn’t which is adequate, but which is more effective. And since even Obama is still subjecting some people to military tribunals and keeping them in that system, there is obviously a reason he (and not just the rabid right) thinks this is needed in some instances.
Except that there is a lot of space between letting someone “lawyer up” in the criminal justice system and waterboarding him in a military jail.
How many of these organizations have declared war against the US and how many of them are covered by the AUMF from 2001?
I think the main point these folks are trying make is not so much the outcome of the tribunals themselves, but putting these folks into that system where they can be interrogated longer and w/o the shield of a criminal lawyer. The idea is to optimize the amount of info we get from them about other operations and operatives of al Qaeda. Further down the road, there is a lot more the executive can do to detain someone in the military system than in the criminal system.
Of course, Obama has already indicated that he holds the option of detaining people who are found not guilty in the criminal justice system, so that last point is of less interest. Still, I would assume it’s a lot easier keeping someone in the military system once they’re in there than transferring someone into that system once they’re in the criminal justice system.
So, you think the folks on the right really don’t care one way or the other whether this guys ends up in the criminal justice system or in the custody of the military? Just because they exploit this make jabs at Obama does not mean that they don’t hold the belief that it is the right thing to do.
The question is why they hold that belief. They would argue that it’s because enhanced interrogation of these people is critical to our national security, but in fact, they have no idea if it is or not. It is, therefore, because their elected representatives and pundits told them so.
The argument on the other side is that abridging the civil rights of people in US custody is wrong. Sticking them in front of military tribunals- where they are subject to fewer protections- despite the fact that they are clearly civilians constitutes such adbridgement.
I thought the repubs were right when they put him through the civilian court system. I heard on TV that 297 out of 300 “terrorists” were tried in civilian courts. He was trying to blow up a civilian plane in American territory.
Unless you are a member of the military justice system, you have no idea either, and get your information from the same sources. So, what’s your point?
But that is a matter open to debate. Congress explicitly authorized the use of such trials in 2006. Military Commissions Act of 2006
It wasn’t in American territory. It was over the Atlantic. The US was able to assert jurisdiction because it was an American plane.
You are missing the point - I am not asserting any sort of expert knowledge of the military justice system. My position is that transferring civilian suspects to the military justice system is illegal, regardless of whether or not it is useful.
Congress authorized the use of such trials for unlawful enemy combatants, who were at that time defined as nonuniformed personnel fighting US interests in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan. This dude and Reid were not combatants at all. They are criminals.
Can you cite the part of the law that says they have to be captured outside the US? The definition I cited makes no such distinction.
Another difference, among the others already listed. Richard Reid is British. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is Nigerian.
I don’t think that is a material difference in terms of detention and trial. It might make a difference if we were deciding whether or not to release them to their home countries.
Defined = that’s how the AUMF was sold to Congress. In any case, neither Reid nor Mutallab has engaged in or supported hostilities against the US or its allies.
At the heart of all the conservative arguments is this:
Justice is appropriate for white people with American sounding names. Revenge is appropriate for Brown people with foreign sounding names.
The shoe bomber had white skin, and an American sounding name. The panty bomber has brown skin and an obviously foreign name.
I would not paint ALL folks on the right with the same brush. I just believe that for MANY on the right (including most right-leaning media) it’s all about whose team wins. They don’t really put much though into WHY they oppose Obama. They have not really wondered about their REASONS for wanting this guy to be tried by the military. They are just cheering on their team. Again, this is not ALL people on the right, but I believe it is a substantial number.
Do you think that Obama is also now right for wanting to try Umar Matallab in civillian court? If so, good - that shows logical consistency.
I dunno about this theory. Half-white though shoe bomber Richard Reid may be, he certainly “looks brown” to me.